US President Donald Trump’s administration is pressuring Ukraine to sign an economic deal that would transfer a significant share of its natural resources, ports, and industrial profits to a US-controlled fund in exchange for continued backing. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected the latest proposal, calling it “unfair” and insisting that any agreement must include military aid.
The negotiations, which come amid relentless Russian drone attacks on Kyiv, have left Ukrainian officials deeply concerned. As per a report in the Economist, one official described the talks as “not negotiation, but extortion.”
Ukraine fears that refusing Trump’s terms could lead to drastic consequences, including a cutoff in military assistance, restricted access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system—critical for battlefield communications—or a push for peace talks that favor Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Three years of resistance. Three years of gratitude. Three years of absolute heroism of Ukrainians.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Why it matters
- The Trump administration’s approach signals a major shift in US foreign policy, prioritizing economic returns over traditional security commitments. Unlike previous administrations, which framed aid as strategic support against Russian aggression, Trump sees it as a transaction that must yield direct benefits for the US.
- This new stance puts Ukraine in an impossible position: Accept a deal that could be politically catastrophic or face a US withdrawal that would leave them severely weakened against Russia. One Ukrainian official told the Economist: “If we sign this as it stands, tomorrow we’d be thrown out of office and lynched by an angry mob.”
- Trump’s demands have not only shaken Kyiv but have also unsettled America’s European allies. With the prospect of US military support dwindling, Britain and France are reportedly considering deploying up to 30,000 peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. The idea, floated in closed-door discussions, has not yet been publicly endorsed. However, if Washington abandons its commitment to Ukraine’s security, Europe may have little choice but to step in.
- Meanwhile, European leaders are scrambling to devise a response to the Trump administration’s shifting policies. The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, is set to travel to Kyiv for talks with Zelenskyy, while the leaders of Britain and France are scheduled to meet Trump in Washington later this week. Their message will likely be blunt: Abandoning Ukraine to Russia would not only embolden Mr. Putin but also set a dangerous precedent for other autocratic regimes watching from the sidelines.
The big picture
- Escalating demands: Since February 12th, Ukraine has been presented with three versions of Trump’s proposal: a “bad” one, a “better” one, and a “disastrous” one. The latest and most extreme version would require Ukraine to transfer 50% of future state profits from natural resources and key infrastructure—like ports—to a new investment fund owned by the US government. The arrangement would continue until the fund reaches $500 billion, the Economist report said.
- Unrealistic expectations: Trump’s team claims the US has spent $500 billion on Ukraine since the war began. However, official records show that military and economic aid has been less than a quarter of that amount. The $500 billion figure appears to be an inflated estimate designed to justify aggressive repayment terms. At Ukraine’s current revenue levels, meeting this demand would take centuries.
- Disorganized negotiations: Ukraine has struggled to keep up with the rotating cast of Trump officials handling the talks. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent delivered the first offer on February 12th in Kyiv, giving Zelenskyy just one hour to sign. A week later, Vice President JD Vance and Special Representative for Ukraine Keith Kellogg presented a revised “better” version at the Munich Security Conference, which removed some of the more punitive repayment language but still lacked military guarantees. Just days later, Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick blindsided Ukraine with an even tougher deal, dismissing previous negotiations and demanding that Zelenskyy sign immediately.
Trump, however, acted more like a mob boss from a Hollywood film. He dispatched an “accountant” to Kiev, who presented a document for Zelensky to sign and bluntly explained: what’s ours is ours; and what’s yours is also ours. Oh, and you owe us a kidney and an eye, while we owe you nothing at all. Here’s a pen — sign here.
An article in Russia Today
Between the lines
Trump’s insistence that Ukraine’s resources serve as “recompense” for past aid suggests a return to a pre-World War II approach to global affairs—where powerful nations extracted wealth from weaker allies in exchange for protection. This is a dramatic departure from the postwar US strategy of using military and economic aid to strengthen allies against adversaries.
Some Ukrainian officials believe the latest, harsher proposal is meant as a punishment for their resistance. One described Lutnick’s approach as cold and transactional: “Once [Trump] saw that we didn’t sign with Vance and Kellogg, he sent a very senior guy who speaks only with figures—no emotions, no empathy, nothing.” The message was clear: Sign the deal, or face the consequences.
Zelenskyy’s dilemma
- Zelenskyy faces intense domestic pressure to reject any deal that appears to trade Ukraine’s sovereignty for American support. “I defend Ukraine, I can’t sell our country,” he declared on February 19th. His government argues that the aid received under the Biden administration was a grant, not a loan that now requires repayment. If he signs the deal as it stands, he risks massive political backlash and potential unrest.
- At the same time, Ukraine’s position on the battlefield depends on continued US military assistance. Trump’s administration has already signaled that it might restrict key supplies if Ukraine refuses the deal. The fear of losing access to Starlink—a system that has become the backbone of Ukraine’s frontline communications—is particularly acute.
This year should be the year of the beginning of a real, lasting peace. Putin will not give us peace or give it to us in exchange for something. We have to win peace through strength and wisdom and unity
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Trump’s strategy
- Trump’s approach to Ukraine is part of a broader realignment in US foreign policy. His administration has made it clear that American support will no longer be unconditional. Instead, Trump is applying a business-style negotiation strategy, treating alliances as transactional rather than strategic.
- A return to spheres of influence: Trump’s comments on Nato suggest he is comfortable allowing major powers—like Russia and China—to carve out their own regional spheres of influence, a stance that alarms European allies. In a recent rally, he even suggested that the US would “encourage” Russia to attack Nato countries that fail to meet their defense spending obligations.
- A preference for economic over military influence: Trump’s team argues that their approach will ultimately benefit Ukraine by attracting investment and helping rebuild its economy. However, Ukrainian officials counter that the deal is structured in a way that benefits the US far more than Ukraine, effectively making their country a financial vassal state.
- Disrupting traditional diplomacy: The chaotic nature of the negotiations—with different officials pushing different versions of the deal—has left Ukraine uncertain about who to engage with. The lack of clarity raises concerns about Trump’s broader foreign policy, which appears to be driven more by personal deal-making than by a coherent strategic vision.
What’s next
- Ukraine is still pushing for a modified deal, hoping to return to the more balanced version presented by Vance and Kellogg. However, Trump’s hardline approach leaves little room for compromise.
- As per a Russia Today report, any major US mining initiative in Ukraine would require Russian cooperation, as Trump would need Putin’s assurance that extraction sites would not be targeted militarily.
- Even if such an agreement were reached, the deployment of American troops or private military contractors to protect these sites is highly unlikely, as the Kremlin would strongly oppose any foreign military presence in its perceived sphere of influence.
- Rare-earth metal mining is a low-margin industry, and having large reserves does not guarantee profitability, especially in a war-torn country.
- Many of Ukraine’s most promising mineral deposits are either depleted, under Russian control, or located in active conflict zones, making development difficult and requiring tens of billions in investment—an impractical prospect amid ongoing instability.
- If Ukraine refuses to sign, Trump’s administration may retaliate in ways that could cripple its war effort. Cutting off military aid or restricting Starlink access would drastically weaken Ukraine’s position on the battlefield. Some in Kyiv fear Trump may even move to formalize peace talks with Russia without Ukrainian input—effectively forcing Zelenskyy into a settlement on Putin’s terms.
- One Ukrainian official summed up the gravity of the situation: “The negotiation is rude, but it’s not the worst that could happen. Everything else that happens later will be worse.”
- As the talks continue, Ukraine faces a brutal calculation: accept a deeply unpopular deal, or risk standing alone against Russia.
(With inputs from agencies)